Issue 53: August 2018

This edition of CMR E-Notes provides the latest update on federal judges exceeding their authority by ordering the Trump Administration to continue Obama-era transgender mandates on our military. It also reports on determined efforts by the LGBT Left to drag CMR into pending lawsuits filed against President Trump to nullify his transgender policies.

Using a variation of the legal tactic called SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) lawyers for LGBT groups have served subpoenas on CMR and several other "non-party" organizations. The intrusive subpoenas demand access to emails and other information that LGBT Plaintiffs think will "prove" a ridiculous conspiracy theory — the idea that President Trump changed the military's transgender policies for reasons of "animus," not national defense.

It is worth the time to consider the new articles linked below, and why the outcome of ongoing controversies could affect military readiness and, eventually, all institutions of American life.

1. Are LGBT Activists Gaslighting the Pentagon and Courts?

In the waning months of the Obama Administration, gaslighting tactics helped to establish groupthink and transgender ideology at all levels, on a mandatory basis. Then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter imposed controversial transgender policies that were based on unscientific beliefs, such as the notion that superficial changes in appearance can change a man into a woman, or a woman into a man.

All personnel were required to use reality-defying vocabulary, and to comply with official Instructions, Memos, Handbooks, and mandatory training programs that ignored concerns about personal privacy, disproportionately high costs, non-deployability issues, politicized health care that would not solve underlying psychological problems, and ethical conflicts associated with transgender treatments and sometimes surgeries. (SeeCMR Special Report, July 2017)

Donald J. Trump won the 2016 election, promising to strengthen our military. In July and August 2017, Trump announced his intent to review and revise military transgender policies. LGBT activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, LAMDA Legal, and OutServe-SLDN immediately filed lawsuits to stop implementation of President Trump's plans.

Like-minded judges issued injunctions against President Trump and his policies, disregarding the fact that Article III of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize judges to run the military. This article provides an overview and new insight into what the courts and LGBT activists are doing to our military, and why it matters:

Four federal district judges have ruled in favor of transgender Plaintiffs since last Fall. Their Preliminary Injunctions usurped constitutional prerogatives of the Commander-in-Chief, applied unprecedented legal standards of review without constitutional authorization, and adopted without question the assumptions, vocabulary, and ideology of the LGBT Left.

The various court rulings also refused to consider medical and military implications of their orders, and disregarded new data gathered from the Military Health System during implementation of transgender policies of the Obama Administration.

2. Litigation Update #3

Starting in February 2018, LGBT lawyers expanded their discovery demands on the government by serving subpoenas on the Center for Military Readiness and several other organizations. The subpoenas demand access to private emails and communications regarding the transgender issue with White House or Pentagon officials, going back as far as June 2015 - the first day of the Trump for President campaign.

The purpose of the subpoenas is to prove mind-reading speculations about the President's "state of mind," and to persuade federal judges to second-guess and nullify presidential decisions on matters involving national security.

LGBT activists speculate that if they can show that the President had unworthy motives for changing policy, the Supreme Court ultimately will declare his actions to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs expect this result even though federal courts historically have shown "deference" to Congress and the Executive Branch in legal disputes involving national security.

Since last Fall, four federal district courts, in Washington, D.C., Baltimore MD, Seattle WA, and Riverside CA, exceeded their authority by issuing orders to reinstate Obama-era policies. Three of the four ordered the government to produce pre-decisional documents that might provide psychic insight into the President's motives and state of mind.

This comprehensive CMR Policy Analysis explains why these court orders negate all claims of "need" for documents and emails from outside "non-party" organizations, including CMR:

The Department of Justice has filed powerful arguments in defense of President Trump's powers to make policy under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, affirming both the substance and process justifying new military transgender policies that President Trump approved on March 23. (SeeCMR Policy Analysis, July 2018)

The Trump Administration should continue fighting for presidential prerogatives to make policy for the military, until the Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore the constitutional order.

3. Hearing Scheduled on CMR Subpoena Dispute

Plaintiffs in the various lawsuits against President Trump have the right to disagree with CMR’s stated principles, but that does not give them the right to mischaracterize the organization’s motives before a federal Court — or to rummage through CMR’s private emails.

A hearing on CMR’s Motion for a Protective Order against the Seattle subpoena will take place in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on September 25.

Enforcement of the Plaintiffs’ over-reaching subpoena — demanding all emails and documents related to the transgender issue going back three years to the first day of the Trump for President campaign — would impose disproportionate costs on CMR in terms of time and money.

If the court orders compliance with these unreasonable demands to produce documents, CMR will have to spend thousands of dollars on professional IT services, with no guarantee of reimbursement, and spend untold hours redacting information that should remain private.

The injustice to CMR would be even greater, since the judge in the Seattle Karnoski v. Trump case already ruled that the administration possesses and must produce relevant information sought by the Plaintiffs, and “there is no suggestion that this evidence can be obtained from other sources.”

Court-ordered compliance of the intrusive subpoena would violate CMR’s First Amendment rights to independently research, report on, and analyze military/social policies, and chill discussions with government officials and/or potential sources of information about the consequences of controversial policies. These consequences, which would seriously impede CMR’s work, may be an underlying second purpose being pursued by well-funded LGBT groups and an army of prominent law firm attorneys.

CMR is grateful to Prof. William “Woody” Woodruff and the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center for their legal representation and invaluable assistance in defending CMR’s First Amendment rights. The legal team is confident in the facts supporting their Motion for a Protective Order and we will provide updates as events develop.

More background information on this and related issues is available on CMR’s website, www.cmrlink.org, and from President Elaine Donnelly, elaine@cmrlink.org. The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993, is an independent public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social policies.